Who to draft in 1978 ? Topic

Posted by blackmink18 on 4/9/2013 5:24:00 PM (view original):Always go pitching unless your are severley lacking PA's at a position for the short & long term

FWIW, I don't agree with this at all.

100% with you on this. If anything, I tend to lean a bit towards bats when I'm picking early in the first round. Most pitchers are inconsistent from year to year, many of the better bats are less so. It's easier to build a team around a foundation of consistent players. Honestly, when I got to pick Bonds 2nd in 1986 in a prog a couple of years ago I was pretty happy. It's hard to pass on Maddux, since he's one of the pitchers who actually are consistent, but an elite bat buoys your whole offense.

I've never been a huge fan of Molitor, I think for the reasons you mentioned in your 1st post. He's great, but has many up and down years. My personal choice would be Trammel or Ozzie. If you're in a hitters park take Ozzie, pitchers park take Trammel (imo). Either way, I think the #1 pick is overrated in this draft. If you don't have a CLEAR favorite among them, trade down. Even to the #2 or #3 spots - see what the guys are willing to offer. Get another pick or player with some future. This is when I can pull off a lot of "my #1 overall and my 3rd rounder for your 1st this year and next" kind of trades

I would try to trade down too, but if I couldn't, I'd take Ozzie or Trammell. I hate guys like Molitor who move around from year to year. I love guys like Ozzie and Trammell who you can just plug in every season and forget about SS for 15 years.

for reference - in a 1918/1978 progressive - I, too, had the #1 pick and I took Ozzie. I went back and forth between Ozzie, Trammel, and Dolf Luque (be lucky you don't have to consider him in your debating!! :)) - I play in Montreal - so I took Ozzie - I already have a pitching staff with Walter Johnson and Hippo Vaughn - so I thought I'd (like jfranco said) take care of SS for the next 15 years.

I get the position scarcity of the SS position, I get the longevity, I get the great defense and his speed game. Ozzie Smith is a good pick, but IMO not the best pick for #1 overall. The Wizard doesn't hit over .260 until he is 30 years old, which is his 8th season. Never slugged over .400, over a .380 OBP just once, more than 3 homers just once, more than 6 triples just once, over .300 batting average just once.

On a real baseball diamond, I would take Ozzie Smith. On a fantasy/simulated baseball team, I'd take Molitor.

Thank you everyone for a great discussion and debate. I took the logic of those who argued the importance of SS as a position and being able to lock it down for a generation or more, but also that of those looking to offensive issues.

Trammell may not field like Ozzie Smith - nor does fly like Superman or write songs like Bob Dylan or Beethoven for that matter, or write like Shakespeare, but he fields very well, hit well from the start and starts my team's rebuilding program.

Not sure who to go with with the second first round pick, the one I obtained in a trade, but with a basically good staff and enough IP, OFs that are hardly world-beating but who hit well for the next few seasons, and an infield of Ashby/Milt May, Thornton (2 good seasons left), Dauer, Trammell and DeCinces I feel like this team already feels like it could go somewhere. And now Dave Chalk goes from being an ok SS in a pinch to being a very good utility IF with a lot of PA.

Posted by blackmink18 on 4/9/2013 5:24:00 PM (view original):Always go pitching unless your are severley lacking PA's at a position for the short & long term

FWIW, I don't agree with this at all.

100% with you on this. If anything, I tend to lean a bit towards bats when I'm picking early in the first round. Most pitchers are inconsistent from year to year, many of the better bats are less so. It's easier to build a team around a foundation of consistent players. Honestly, when I got to pick Bonds 2nd in 1986 in a prog a couple of years ago I was pretty happy. It's hard to pass on Maddux, since he's one of the pitchers who actually are consistent, but an elite bat buoys your whole offense.

I'd find Maddux hard to pass up on too. In fact, I'd take him over Bonds.

The thing I noticed as I take one of my prog teams into the 2000's is that there's a seriously dead patch for pitching during the Juice years (coincidence!?!?). Maddux, Johnson and Pedro are the only starting pitchers that give you any kind of high level consistency for about a 15 year stretch... whereas, on the other hand, Helton-type guys are a dime a dozen.

Thanks um, mr. trump. Anyway I took Sanderson with the second first round pick. I then used a traded for 2nd round pick to trade for Gary Matthews, who was better than any outfielder still available in the draft - I was hoping for Willie Wilson, who would have been added to Dave Collins and Jerry Mumphrey to create a rare progressive league speed-demon team.

But alas it was not to be and the fastest man in baseball went right before that pick so I traded for Matthews. The last second round pick I had I used to get Jim Beattie, since the pitching staff is good, but flattens out for a couple of seasons around 1983-4 and he pitches fairly well and takes up the slack as a SP then.

I feel very good about this team now. Perhaps I could have done more were I more of an entrepreneurial type. But I have a good infield with Thornton, Dauer, Trammell and DeCinces. The two catchers Asby and May are good. The OF will most likely start Leon Roberts, Gary Matthews and Rico Carty (31 homers and put Mumphrey in for the late innings def) with Collins, Mumphrey, Lee Lacy, Dan Meyer and Dave Chalk as a bench.

Randy Jones, Scott McGregor, Mike Caldwell and Mark Lemongello are the front four, Langford, Marty Pattin and Scott Sanderson in the pen. In near future seasons, Sanderson, Langford and Bill Lee step up to the starting rotation, Buskey returns from DL, and then Beattie steps in as a couple of guys have low IP.

This team looked for a while like it might not make it to the minimum of 40 wins game 120 to qualify for the first part of round 1 last season. Now I feel like it is a team.

Could it contend in the next few seasons ? Don't know but what was once a fairly identity-less team that never seemed to gel despite big-name pitchers, might now be improved and at the same time have a future.

And in 1978 there are still a few jobs left in Pittsburgh. No AIDS crisis yet, no War on Drugs, no war war, no union busting president. And I am just hitting my liberal arts college in the woods.

after getting so bored with the SIM it was a pleasure to read about this progressive and the different strategies...if you are short a player sometime and you dont mind some hand holding I might just be persuaded to give it a try